Top 25 Cities for Workers With Disabilities

By  
  |  
By  
  |  

Featured Experts

Approximately 61 million people in the United States live with disabilities, defined as physical or mental conditions that impair one’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Just 18% of Americans with disabilities are employed, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 26% live in poverty. However, where you live can make the difference between economic opportunity and significant financial difficulty.

To understand where people with disabilities are more likely to be welcomed and supported in the labor market, MoneyGeek analyzed key measures of workforce participation, poverty and access to crucial services such as transportation and health care in 218 American cities.

Key Findings:
  • This is an icon

    The Washington, D.C. area ranks among the top places to live for workers with disabilities.

    Alexandria (#1) and Arlington (#4), Virginia, are also in the top five in our ranking.

  • This is an icon

    Florida has cities representing the best and the worst place for workers with disabilities.

    Hialeah has the highest gap (56%) in workforce participation between people with and without disabilities. On the other end of the spectrum, Gainesville is the second-best city for workers with disabilities, with a 17% employment gap. The national average is 36%.

  • This is an icon

    The Pacific Northwest dominates the top ten cities.

    Portland, OR and Seattle, WA are both in the top ten best places to live for workers with disabilities.

Top Cities for Workers With Disabilities

Top Cities For Workers With Disabilities 2021

MoneyGeek’s analysis looked at a range of factors, including the size of the population of people living with disabilities in a given place, the workforce participation rate on its own and compared to the population without a disability's employment rate, and general indicators of poverty.

Places with more people living with disabilities are more likely to have a higher concentration of services and, potentially, a more accepting and supportive community.

With less than half the population living with a disability in the workforce nationally, we looked for places that exceeded the norm. For example, Alexandria, VA — the top-ranked city overall — has 66% labor force participation among people living with disabilities.

However, it can be difficult for people living with disabilities to make enough to live over the poverty line, even in communities that ranked high on our list. For example, in Minneapolis, MN, the poverty rate for people with disabilities is 32%, and 35% in Boston, MA; both cities are in the top 25 and have higher poverty rates for those living with disabilities than the national rate of 26%. In 2020, the national poverty rate for the entire U.S. population was about 11%.

Top 25 Cities Where Workers With Disabilities Are Doing Best

Scroll for more

swipe icon
  • City
    Final Score
  • 1.
    Alexandria, VA
    100
  • 2.
    Gainesville, FL
    97
  • 3.
    Madison, WI
    97
  • 4.
    Arlington, VA
    96
  • 5.
    Portland, OR
    96
  • 6.
    Seattle, WA
    96
  • 7.
    Lakewood, CO
    96
  • 8.
    Minneapolis, MN
    95

Economic Realities That Workers With Disabilities Face

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace, but that doesn’t mean that people with disabilities have truly equal access to employment opportunities.

More subtle forms of bias and lack of accommodations can keep people with disabilities out of the workforce.

Other challenges can include lack of access to transportation. For example, in Arlington, TX — which ranked 135th on our list — 0% of workers with disabilities reported taking public transit to work. People with disabilities can modify vehicles to drive and access free "paratransit" services, but that doesn’t mean transportation is always easy or workable for a daily commute.

The financial costs of living with a disability can also be high, even with health insurance coverage, which most people with disabilities have. Financial planning and management can be challenging, and building wealth — such as through homeownership — can be out of reach for many people with disabilities living on Social Security benefits.

According to the National Disability Institute, people living with disabilities are three times more likely to report extreme difficulty paying bills and more than twice as likely to earn less than $35,000 per year compared to people without disabilities. It’s still legal to pay workers living with certain disabilities less than the Federal minimum wage in the United States.

“The lack of income leads to a greater likelihood that people with disabilities are unbanked, skip medical appointments and miss housing payments than people without disabilities,” said Jill Reynolds, associate practice area head for human services at Public Consulting Group.

Expert Insights

People with disabilities face unique challenges. Public and private-sector policies can have a tremendous impact on the quality of life and economic well-being of people living with disabilities. We spoke to experts to get their insights into the challenges and potential opportunities to improve the lives of people with disabilities.

  1. What are some of the unique challenges people with disabilities face in the workforce or trying to enter the workforce? What policies can help?
  2. What economic policies could be enacted (or have been passed) to help workers with disabilities achieve more economic well-being? What might the positive and negative impacts of such policies be?
Julie Christensen
Julie Christensen

Executive Director and Director of Policy and Advocacy, APSE

Jill Reynolds
Jill Reynolds

Associate Practice Area Head / Human Services, Public Consulting Group

Jennifer C. Sarrett
Jennifer C. Sarrett

Ph.D. (she/her/hers) Emory University, Center for the Study of Human Health

​​David Pettinicchio
​​David Pettinicchio

Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Toronto

How to Advocate for Better Opportunities for Workers With Disabilities

Our rankings show a wide range of local conditions for workers with disabilities and tremendous opportunities for improvement — even in the highest-ranking locations. People with disabilities and their advocates can champion changes to improve opportunities for workers with disabilities.

According to Julie Christensen, Executive Director and Director of Policy and Advocacy, Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE): “One of the most effective forms of advocacy is to promote stories of success. But this needs to be a shared responsibility. When workers with disabilities are able to share their stories, it can be incredibly powerful in breaking down some of the misconceptions and stigma that still exists. However, not everyone wants to focus on being different. We need more business leaders to tell their stories of how the inclusion of people with disabilities enhances their overall business and outcomes. These stories would shift the narrative from simply a feel-good story to demonstrating the contributions and value that people with disabilities bring to the workplace."

Here are a few things anyone can do to help advocate for people with disabilities:

1

Speak up!

Contact your elected representatives at every level: your state’s Governor, State Senator and U.S. House Representative. Let them know how much you care about issues that affect workers with disabilities. The Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE) provides online resources for how to get started reaching out to elected officials and specific policy items that you can endorse when you do.

2

Advocate at work.

Self-advocacy at work can be challenging, but you have certain legal rights and protections thanks to the ADA. Research your rights and accommodation options to prepare to request what you need from your employer.

3

Be an ally.

Commit yourself to learning more about the experiences of people with disabilities. You may already be an ally to people with disabilities; you can always become an even better one. Expand your social media feeds. Read and watch stories by and about people with disabilities. Develop your own awareness of ableism and look out for accessibility challenges that you might be able to improve — or at least give feedback about. Don’t worry about understanding everything about living with a disability — everyone’s experiences are different — just be the best ally and supporter you can be now and then, strive always to do a little better.

4

Vote with your wallet.

Shop at brands and small businesses led by people with disabilities, then spread the word about your good experiences to amplify your impact.

Methodology

To rank the cities where workers with disabilities are finding the best employment opportunities, MoneyGeek analyzed data from the American Community Survey, MoneyGeek’s Safest Cities and Safest Small Cities and Towns studies, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. MoneyGeek started with over 600 places in America that had populations of people living with disabilities of 10,000 or more. Places without granular data about workers with disabilities or lacking other data points for the analysis were removed to get to the final set of 218 cities.

The ranking of the top cities for workers with disabilities was based on six factors: safety, the population of people living with disabilities, labor force participation, poverty rates, health insurance rates for people with disabilities and cost of living. Each factor in the study was scaled to a score between 0 and 1. The factors were calculated as follows:

Population (full weight): The size of the community of people with disabilities was used as a proxy for the availability of services that support this community. Cities with less than 10,000 people with disabilities were removed from consideration in the analysis.

Labor Force Participation (double weight): This metric equally comprises two metrics.

  • Labor Force Participation Rate (75%): The percentage of the population of people who have disabilities that are working or looking for employment.
  • Labor Force Participation Gap (25%): The difference in percentage points of the rate of labor force participation compared to the labor force participation rate of people who don’t have disabilities.

Poverty Rate (full weight): This factor equally comprises two metrics.

  • Above Poverty Rate (50%): The rate of people with disabilities at or above the poverty level.
  • Above Poverty Gap (50%): The percentage point difference of the city’s rate of workers with disabilities earning at or above the poverty level and the poverty rate of all other people in the city.

Health Insurance (full weight): The difference in percentage points between the rate of workers with disabilities ages 18–64 that have health insurance and the rate of health insurance nationally.

Transportation (double weight): This factor is the percentage of workers that take public transportation.

Cost of Living (full weight): This factor adjusts for the cost of living in a city.

Full Data Set

The data points presented are defined as follows:

  • Population With Disability: Size of the population of people with disabilities in the city.
  • Pop. w. Disability - Labor Force Participation: The percentage of people who live with a disability that have a job or are looking for one.
  • Labor Force Gap: Difference in the labor force participation rate between people with disabilities and those without disabilities.
  • Poverty Level With Disability: The percentage of the population that is at or above the poverty level.
  • Health Insurance Coverage - With Disability: The percentage of the 18–64 population of people with disabilities that have health insurance.
Rank
City
Final Score
Population with Disabilty
Pop. w. Disability: Labor Force Participation
Labor Force Gap
Poverty Level with Disability
Health Insurance Coverage - With disability

1

Alexandria, VA

100

10,181

66%

-23%

81%

98%

2

Gainesville, FL

97

13,992

52%

-17%

77%

94%

3

Madison, WI

97

22,090

53%

-31%

75%

97%

4

Arlington, VA

96

14,506

58%

-31%

84%

95%

5

Portland, OR

96

77,848

52%

-34%

76%

96%

6

Seattle, WA

96

69,753

57%

-30%

73%

96%

7

Lakewood, CO

96

17,734

55%

-31%

88%

96%

8

Minneapolis, MN

95

46,814

56%

-31%

68%

96%

9

Pittsburgh, PA

95

43,974

42%

-40%

70%

96%

10

Tempe, AZ

95

20,360

58%

-21%

81%

91%

11

Aurora, IL

95

17,057

56%

-30%

79%

97%

12

Chicago, IL

95

301,612

44%

-39%

71%

93%

13

Boston, MA

95

79,288

50%

-33%

65%

98%

14

Newport News, VA

95

20,505

51%

-30%

83%

96%

15

Paradise, NV

95

30,547

58%

-27%

77%

91%

16

Rochester, MN

94

11,360

52%

-37%

86%

94%

17

Fremont, CA

93

17,056

60%

-21%

91%

98%

18

St. Paul, MN

92

37,144

53%

-32%

71%

94%

19

Norfolk, VA

92

29,694

49%

-32%

79%

93%

20

Columbus, OH

92

104,634

54%

-31%

74%

92%

21

Aurora, CO

91

39,080

54%

-33%

85%

93%

22

Nashville-Davidson, TN

91

72,718

56%

-31%

80%

91%

23

Philadelphia, PA

91

277,510

39%

-41%

64%

94%

24

New York, NY

91

895,789

38%

-42%

71%

97%

25

Hillsboro, OR

91

10,520

49%

-34%

84%

96%

26

Vancouver, WA

91

25,930

49%

-34%

84%

98%

27

Lansing, MI

91

18,552

47%

-38%

70%

95%

28

Bellevue, WA

91

12,463

58%

-26%

79%

93%

29

Salt Lake City, UT

90

22,104

54%

-31%

73%

91%

30

Garland, TX

90

19,747

65%

-18%

80%

87%

31

Raleigh, NC

90

45,660

56%

-26%

81%

93%

32

Gresham, OR

89

18,456

46%

-37%

81%

95%

33

Washington, DC

89

78,413

39%

-46%

73%

98%

34

Albuquerque, NM

89

81,602

46%

-37%

75%

96%

35

Omaha, NE

89

53,220

57%

-30%

82%

88%

36

Austin, TX

88

87,956

57%

-28%

76%

90%

37

North Las Vegas, NV

88

25,876

50%

-30%

87%

91%

38

San Francisco, CA

88

85,743

48%

-40%

75%

98%

39

Lexington-Fayette, KY

88

38,441

47%

-36%

75%

96%

40

Baltimore, MD

88

96,445

39%

-42%

66%

96%

41

Cincinnati, OH

88

36,584

42%

-39%

67%

95%

42

Phoenix, AZ

87

184,295

47%

-34%

78%

92%

43

Kent, WA

87

14,098

46%

-41%

88%

96%

44

Los Angeles, CA

86

397,171

46%

-35%

74%

95%

45

El Paso, TX

86

92,095

49%

-29%

78%

90%

46

Rochester, NY

86

37,503

39%

-43%

61%

98%

47

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY

86

96,695

40%

-44%

70%

96%

48

Charlotte, NC

86

61,875

47%

-38%

80%

92%

49

Denver, CO

86

65,123

48%

-39%

74%

93%

50

Cleveland, OH

86

71,927

35%

-44%

57%

96%

51

Mesa, AZ

86

59,686

48%

-36%

85%

93%

52

Buffalo, NY

86

41,803

35%

-42%

60%

97%

53

Greensboro, NC

86

34,980

42%

-38%

67%

96%

54

Urban Honolulu, HI

85

37,470

44%

-41%

83%

97%

55

St. Louis, MO

85

49,128

41%

-44%

67%

92%

56

Las Vegas, NV

85

78,804

44%

-37%

77%

93%

57

Tucson, AZ

84

84,671

39%

-42%

73%

95%

58

New Orleans, LA

84

53,377

41%

-38%

62%

95%

59

Savannah, GA

84

22,453

45%

-37%

71%

90%

60

San Diego, CA

84

122,630

46%

-35%

82%

96%

61

Yonkers, NY

84

27,700

47%

-36%

70%

94%

62

Detroit, MI

83

117,257

31%

-46%

61%

96%

63

St. Petersburg, FL

83

34,343

41%

-45%

81%

94%

64

Grand Rapids, MI

83

25,323

47%

-37%

61%

94%

65

Reno, NV

83

26,414

48%

-38%

82%

90%

66

Atlanta, GA

83

59,324

38%

-40%

64%

92%

67

Jacksonville, FL

83

112,499

44%

-38%

77%

92%

68

Tallahassee, FL

82

16,295

41%

-37%

68%

94%

69

Richmond, CA

82

12,015

43%

-40%

86%

96%

70

San Antonio, TX

82

228,874

43%

-39%

74%

87%

71

Oakland, CA

82

45,422

44%

-39%

72%

97%

72

Richmond, VA

82

33,651

47%

-36%

60%

90%

73

Inglewood, CA

82

14,053

40%

-44%

81%

96%

74

Syracuse, NY

82

24,646

36%

-37%

61%

98%

75

Milwaukee, WI

81

70,847

30%

-48%

69%

95%

76

Tacoma, WA

81

28,775

44%

-41%

76%

95%

77

Sacramento, CA

81

57,295

37%

-46%

79%

98%

78

Glendale, AZ

81

36,737

42%

-38%

70%

92%

79

Indianapolis, IN

81

114,880

40%

-43%

75%

93%

80

Spokane, WA

81

34,954

35%

-47%

72%

97%

81

Springfield, MA

81

23,409

30%

-47%

64%

100%

82

Houston, TX

81

230,799

46%

-33%

73%

86%

83

New Haven, CT

81

12,030

34%

-45%

65%

98%

84

Westminster, CO

80

10,127

69%

-21%

93%

96%

85

Riverside, CA

80

36,537

39%

-39%

82%

96%

86

Thornton, CO

80

13,635

63%

-22%

91%

99%

87

East Los Angeles, CA

80

11,695

40%

-39%

82%

92%

88

Kansas City, MO

80

63,933

42%

-43%

77%

89%

89

San Jose, CA

80

93,302

42%

-41%

84%

98%

90

Dallas, TX

80

137,992

46%

-35%

76%

86%

91

Gilbert, AZ

80

20,861

63%

-20%

92%

96%

92

Jersey City, NJ

79

23,893

39%

-43%

69%

93%

93

Antioch, CA

79

17,356

52%

-29%

72%

94%

94

Fresno, CA

79

76,129

40%

-39%

68%

96%

95

Renton, WA

79

10,994

46%

-39%

72%

96%

96

Durham, NC

79

22,448

38%

-42%

71%

94%

97

Anaheim, CA

79

29,892

49%

-33%

78%

94%

98

Columbia, MD

78

10,235

39%

-46%

75%

96%

99

Bridgeport, CT

78

25,570

43%

-40%

60%

91%

100

Providence, RI

77

23,065

31%

-50%

61%

97%

101

Worcester, MA

77

23,347

37%

-43%

66%

98%

102

Pasadena, CA

77

11,091

43%

-38%

75%

96%

103

Newark, NJ

77

50,995

45%

-36%

61%

88%

104

Vallejo, CA

77

14,266

36%

-45%

78%

97%

105

Hayward, CA

77

15,144

36%

-47%

88%

98%

106

Chula Vista, CA

77

26,014

41%

-41%

86%

94%

107

Arvada, CO

76

13,779

68%

-20%

80%

96%

108

Long Beach, CA

76

48,865

44%

-37%

73%

93%

109

Enterprise, NV

76

16,000

58%

-30%

89%

97%

110

Scottsdale, AZ

76

25,315

55%

-30%

89%

98%

111

Virginia Beach, VA

76

49,797

56%

-30%

87%

95%

112

Henderson, NV

76

39,474

51%

-29%

89%

97%

113

Cary, NC

76

11,291

61%

-22%

91%

94%

114

Baton Rouge, LA

75

36,439

54%

-24%

71%

95%

115

Santa Ana, CA

75

24,566

42%

-39%

81%

94%

116

Lubbock, TX

75

31,035

54%

-24%

81%

92%

117

Sunrise Manor, NV

74

25,906

32%

-42%

72%

88%

118

Concord, CA

74

15,221

39%

-45%

81%

95%

119

South Bend, IN

74

17,741

52%

-30%

75%

93%

120

Fort Collins, CO

74

11,147

59%

-22%

77%

99%

121

Cedar Rapids, IA

74

13,405

54%

-32%

76%

97%

122

Eugene, OR

73

26,909

54%

-26%

75%

96%

123

Fort Worth, TX

72

83,735

45%

-36%

78%

90%

124

Chandler, AZ

72

25,784

57%

-28%

87%

93%

125

Norman, OK

72

15,548

46%

-29%

80%

95%

126

Wichita, KS

72

58,827

51%

-35%

79%

91%

127

Fort Wayne, IN

71

39,898

48%

-36%

80%

94%

128

Colorado Springs, CO

71

58,892

53%

-32%

84%

94%

129

Overland Park, KS

71

16,748

51%

-37%

92%

92%

130

Lincoln, NE

71

29,663

53%

-34%

82%

92%

131

Salem, OR

71

26,496

53%

-28%

76%

96%

132

Boise City, ID

71

26,839

53%

-32%

74%

96%

133

Little Rock, AR

71

27,719

49%

-33%

73%

97%

134

Miami, FL

71

53,333

33%

-51%

64%

92%

135

Arlington, TX

70

43,307

52%

-29%

89%

91%

136

Irving, TX

69

15,703

64%

-18%

85%

85%

137

Hollywood, FL

69

21,197

40%

-45%

77%

84%

138

Fargo, ND

69

13,297

53%

-38%

75%

94%

139

Spring Valley, NV

69

24,982

48%

-35%

81%

96%

140

Springfield, IL

68

18,332

51%

-30%

73%

91%

141

Tampa, FL

68

46,795

36%

-44%

64%

91%

142

Chico, CA

68

12,316

60%

-18%

75%

95%

143

Warren, MI

68

20,442

44%

-38%

77%

98%

144

Dayton, OH

68

30,189

41%

-36%

68%

93%

145

Des Moines, IA

68

31,526

47%

-41%

73%

96%

146

Fairfield, CA

67

13,088

53%

-30%

88%

98%

147

Oceanside, CA

67

22,200

52%

-33%

92%

96%

148

Orlando, FL

67

29,213

53%

-32%

80%

91%

149

Elizabeth, NJ

67

12,454

31%

-49%

75%

91%

150

Montgomery, AL

67

24,929

41%

-40%

76%

95%

151

Topeka, KS

66

17,266

48%

-41%

80%

90%

152

Toledo, OH

66

46,755

41%

-39%

67%

94%

153

Fullerton, CA

66

10,519

53%

-26%

85%

99%

154

Sioux Falls, SD

66

19,177

56%

-35%

73%

92%

155

Rockford, IL

66

20,380

42%

-39%

65%

98%

156

Plano, TX

66

19,721

49%

-33%

88%

93%

157

Fayetteville, NC

65

30,432

47%

-33%

75%

88%

158

Macon-Bibb, GA

65

25,261

40%

-40%

74%

92%

159

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

65

15,704

46%

-36%

86%

98%

160

Chattanooga, TN

65

30,394

45%

-41%

76%

90%

161

Pompano Beach, FL

65

16,997

57%

-27%

78%

91%

162

Oklahoma City, OK

65

87,039

45%

-38%

77%

89%

163

Santa Clarita, CA

65

18,943

51%

-28%

85%

98%

164

Simi Valley, CA

65

14,160

50%

-32%

87%

97%

165

Columbus, GA

65

34,525

41%

-36%

74%

91%

166

Huntington Beach, CA

65

20,002

51%

-32%

85%

98%

167

Ontario, CA

64

14,496

47%

-33%

86%

95%

168

Bakersfield, CA

64

37,055

41%

-34%

81%

94%

169

Tulsa, OK

64

51,592

47%

-35%

76%

87%

170

Wilmington, NC

64

16,237

43%

-32%

73%

93%

171

Akron, OH

64

30,270

35%

-47%

71%

98%

172

Salinas, CA

63

13,270

45%

-31%

84%

96%

173

Mobile, AL

63

19,684

34%

-42%

80%

94%

174

Evansville, IN

63

17,145

36%

-47%

77%

94%

175

Memphis, TN

62

88,918

36%

-45%

75%

92%

176

Moreno Valley, CA

62

21,985

39%

-36%

86%

96%

177

Joliet, IL

62

13,518

40%

-45%

89%

96%

178

Santa Rosa, CA

62

17,967

50%

-35%

90%

95%

179

Peoria, AZ

61

23,934

37%

-44%

83%

95%

180

El Monte, CA

61

11,317

44%

-33%

85%

97%

181

Allentown, PA

61

17,634

42%

-39%

70%

94%

182

Anchorage, AK

60

30,412

47%

-36%

81%

92%

183

Corona, CA

60

11,330

46%

-32%

87%

93%

184

West Palm Beach, FL

60

15,678

50%

-33%

73%

94%

185

Corpus Christi, TX

60

41,538

42%

-36%

71%

89%

186

El Cajon, CA

60

12,575

46%

-36%

81%

96%

187

Torrance, CA

59

12,307

43%

-40%

91%

98%

188

Columbia, SC

59

15,250

45%

-25%

66%

86%

189

Escondido, CA

59

16,216

49%

-29%

73%

96%

190

Charleston, SC

59

14,236

50%

-32%

72%

89%

191

Knoxville, TN

59

26,334

36%

-42%

66%

93%

192

Denton, TX

59

14,593

49%

-33%

82%

85%

193

Fontana, CA

59

19,448

40%

-39%

83%

95%

194

Palmdale, CA

59

21,135

44%

-33%

80%

95%

195

Elk Grove, CA

59

16,683

32%

-49%

87%

99%

196

Winston-Salem, NC

58

27,650

30%

-49%

75%

94%

197

Laredo, TX

58

35,475

48%

-29%

73%

79%

198

Amarillo, TX

57

23,509

37%

-48%

73%

92%

199

Irvine, CA

57

15,464

47%

-27%

77%

96%

200

Pomona, CA

57

17,816

48%

-30%

83%

90%

201

Springfield, MO

56

30,362

35%

-40%

64%

89%

202

Oxnard, CA

56

17,472

46%

-34%

82%

92%

203

Thousand Oaks, CA

56

12,783

37%

-46%

87%

98%

204

Lancaster, CA

56

12,614

37%

-32%

79%

98%

205

Augusta-Richmond County, GA

55

33,074

27%

-54%

75%

91%

206

Birmingham, AL

55

36,989

35%

-43%

62%

90%

207

San Bernardino, CA

55

22,182

38%

-40%

71%

95%

208

Athens-Clarke County, GA

55

16,436

41%

-30%

67%

82%

209

Fort Lauderdale, FL

54

21,041

51%

-34%

73%

87%

210

Stockton, CA

54

42,519

40%

-35%

81%

97%

211

San Buenaventura (Ventura), CA

54

14,025

44%

-39%

81%

93%

212

Glendale, CA

53

22,520

39%

-44%

73%

98%

213

West Covina, CA

52

10,371

32%

-50%

83%

100%

214

Burbank, CA

49

10,382

43%

-40%

71%

94%

215

Lowell, MA

49

16,488

33%

-53%

71%

97%

216

Garden Grove, CA

49

17,759

37%

-44%

78%

93%

217

Norwalk, CA

47

10,563

33%

-47%

82%

94%

218

Hialeah, FL

41

33,059

25%

-56%

66%

92%

About the Author


expert-profile

Deb Gordon is author of The Health Care Consumer’s Manifesto (Praeger 2020), a book about shopping for health care, based on consumer research she conducted as a senior fellow in the Harvard Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government between 2017 and 2019. Her research and writing have been published in JAMA Network Open, the Harvard Business Review blog, USA Today, RealClear Politics, TheHill, and Managed Care Magazine. Deb previously held health care executive roles in health insurance and health care technology services. Deb is an Aspen Institute Health Innovators Fellow, and an Eisenhower Fellow, for which she traveled to Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore to explore the role of consumers in high-performing health systems. She was a 2011 Boston Business Journal 40-under-40 honoree, and a volunteer in MIT’s Delta V start-up accelerator, the Fierce Healthcare Innovation Awards, and in various mentorship programs. She earned a BA in bioethics from Brown University, and an MBA with distinction from Harvard Business School.


sources